Talk:President Obama renews his push to close Guantanamo detention facility

Comments

Right off hand, I see purple prose in the lede, and an external link in the body. The author should know by now not to do these things, which mean more work for some reviewer to correct them. --Pi zero (talk) 23:37, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Things to work on before hitting review me please

Hi. I moved More US medical staff enter Guantanamo Bay back to draft. There are some fundamental point of view problems that need to be addressed, some key facts missing (Can I assume it is the New Zealand navy that sent extra troops) no categories, no sidebar, no pictures, external links embedded in the article. Before submitting for review again, please address them so you do not get a not ready for publication, which will further delay potential publication. --LauraHale (talk) 23:39, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Review of revision 1889518 [Not ready]

Revision 1889518 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 02:06, 1 May 2013 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Not ready: See below. Verifiability: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. NPOV: Not ready: See below. Style: Not ready: See below. Comments by reviewer: This is a great topic to cover. I'm going to list a bunch of things that should be improved, all the ones I can identify atm. I suggest reading through them all before starting to revise, and then trying to address them all as a package. It really would (to state the obvious) be great if the next submission were to pass review handily. Realistically, the new developments today on this story have prematurely undercut the freshness of the article. That's an opportunity, since it resets the clock on freshness when addressing other concerns. Regarding neutrality. The paragraph starting with the word "Despite" caught my eye, because that phrasing seems to suggest naturally expected favor toward Worthington's view. But once my attention was on it, I found myself with another question. Who the **** is Andy Worthington? A British Guantanamo expert? Who raised a concern on his blog? I, and our readers, have no context to judge who this is and what his biases might be. I realize AFP didn't explain these things, but that just means in this case I'm disappointed in AFP. With a story about Guantanamo, it'd be really valuable to bring in some distinctly non-Western source. Fwiw, the two I'm most familiar with are Al Jazeera and RT (although RT needs to be used with great care when it's addressing a story where it has a good opportunity for anti-US propaganda). The lede is off-focus. The headline says the focus is the sending of more medical staff, but this isn't even mentioned in the first sentence of the lede. The first sentence of the lede should really have the most improtant stuff, with overflow in the second sentence. And even in the second sentence, it's not actually said why additional medical staff have been sent, nor when this was done or announced (both basic questions). Questions about the above? Ask. If possible, please address the above issues then resubmit the article for another review (by replacing {{tasks}} in the article with {{review}}). This talk page will be updated with subsequent reviews.

Revision 1889518 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 02:06, 1 May 2013 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Not ready: See below. Verifiability: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. NPOV: Not ready: See below. Style: Not ready: See below. Comments by reviewer: This is a great topic to cover. I'm going to list a bunch of things that should be improved, all the ones I can identify atm. I suggest reading through them all before starting to revise, and then trying to address them all as a package. It really would (to state the obvious) be great if the next submission were to pass review handily. Realistically, the new developments today on this story have prematurely undercut the freshness of the article. That's an opportunity, since it resets the clock on freshness when addressing other concerns. Regarding neutrality. The paragraph starting with the word "Despite" caught my eye, because that phrasing seems to suggest naturally expected favor toward Worthington's view. But once my attention was on it, I found myself with another question. Who the **** is Andy Worthington? A British Guantanamo expert? Who raised a concern on his blog? I, and our readers, have no context to judge who this is and what his biases might be. I realize AFP didn't explain these things, but that just means in this case I'm disappointed in AFP. With a story about Guantanamo, it'd be really valuable to bring in some distinctly non-Western source. Fwiw, the two I'm most familiar with are Al Jazeera and RT (although RT needs to be used with great care when it's addressing a story where it has a good opportunity for anti-US propaganda). The lede is off-focus. The headline says the focus is the sending of more medical staff, but this isn't even mentioned in the first sentence of the lede. The first sentence of the lede should really have the most improtant stuff, with overflow in the second sentence. And even in the second sentence, it's not actually said why additional medical staff have been sent, nor when this was done or announced (both basic questions). Questions about the above? Ask. If possible, please address the above issues then resubmit the article for another review (by replacing {{tasks}} in the article with {{review}}). This talk page will be updated with subsequent reviews.

• Source from the United Arab Emirates
• Source from India

I think one of the problems here is that the sources talking about this situation are themselves not fundamentally neutral and have their own point of views to a degree that they are advancing. Thus, getting to the core facts that can be reported on in a neutral fashion is hard. --LauraHale (talk) 02:52, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

this source is probably one of the better ones in terms of the lead being close to what Wikinews would want as a potential model. --LauraHale (talk) 02:55, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Review of revision 1891870 [Passed]

Revision 1891870 of this article has been reviewed by RockerballAustralia (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 23:22, 3 May 2013 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: Would've bee nice to have a photo. The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.

Revision 1891870 of this article has been reviewed by RockerballAustralia (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 23:22, 3 May 2013 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: Would've bee nice to have a photo. The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.